Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Iran’s Proposal for a ‘Grand Bargain’

By Nicholas D. Kristof April 28, 2007 8:44 pmApril 28, 2007 8:44 pm

In Sunday’s column I lay out the attempts to reach a “grand bargain” between the U.S. and Iran, before Bush administration hard-liners killed the effort in 2003. Here I’m providing more background and the full documents.

The most crucial documents are the Iranian proposals for a “grand bargain” with the U.S. Iran apparently was partly reassured by the bustle of diplomacy in 2001-2003, while also nervous at what it saw as U.S. swagger into Iraq and Afghanistan – and taken aback by President Bush’s hostility to Tehran, as reflected in Iran’s selection for the “axis of evil.”
This document is the original draft version of the “grand bargain,” but its parentage is uncertain. For political reasons, doves in both the U.S. and in Iran prefer to present the grand bargain idea as originating on the other side, for neither wants to signal any political weakness. So this document arrived in the Iranian Foreign Ministry and purported to come from the U.S.; it was described as a U.S. initiative, but I can’t find anyone in the U.S. who acknowledges having prepared it. In any case, this was the starting point.

Then Ambassador Zarif edited it – his changes are in red in this document, and this is the one I would strongly encourage you to read. It was approved as the master statement of the Iranian position. Iran faxed it to the State Department and sent it, through an intermediary, to the White House. Here’s a final, clean version, as it was trasnmitted.

I can’t verify that the Iranian versions were received, or at least reviewed by senior officials. The Bush administration instead seemed to focus on a two-page document that came from the Swiss ambassador to Iran at the time, who looked after American interests there. That was a cover letter and a paraphrase of the Iranian documents cited above. These documents from the Swiss ambassador are what American officials received on May 4, 2003, and which they then rejected. Indeed, the Swiss ambassador was even reprimanded for having the temerity to forward the proposal. The Swiss document was published earlier this year on the Washington Post website with an article by Glenn Kessler; the Iranians’ position is that the real proposal is the one they prepared and transmitted, not the Swiss paraphrase.

These proposals were an outgrowth of a burst of diplomacy, both official and unofficial, in the fall of 2001 as the U.S. and Iran cooperated against their mutual enemy, the Taliban. For background, here is a partial chronology prepared by Hooshang Amirahmadi, head of the American Iranian Council.

The unofficial diplomacy got a boost at two meetings at the home of Ambassador Zarif in September 2002, for board members of the American Iranian Council. Mr. Amirahmadi’s notes show that at the first meeting, Tom Pickering – a veteran U.S. ambassador – said that he had just spoken with the State Department and was told that the Bush administration was prepared to normalize relations in some circumstances. Others at the meeting whom I spoke to don’t particularly remember that, one way or the other. Mr. Pickering himself says he doesn’t remember it, or whom he might have spoken to in the State Department, but he says that if it is in the notes he doesn’t contest it.

At a follow-up meeting at Mr. Zarif’s home, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi met with many of the same people. Mr. Amirahmadi’s notes indicate that initially Mr. Kharrazi was not encouraging but finally said in response to a question:

“Yes! We are ready to normalize relations” with the US and prepared to discuss problems that exist between us, but for that to happen we must be able to trust the US and this requires some initial positive gestures in the part of Washington, particularly a change in tone.

In the months afterward, there were further discussions about how to proceed to nurture improved U.S.-Iranian relations. One proposal was for a conference at which each would publicly discuss normalization; another was for cooperation against Saddam Hussein. By all accounts, the State Department and National Security Council were fully briefed through this period, but different participants disagree about how much of a blessing the State Department gave the process. One participant said it had enough approval that it was in effect “track one-and-a-half,” while another participant said he didn’t see much Bush administration support at all. To add to the confusion, there were several track-two processes going on at the same time, and they were not all fully briefed on the others. Here is a memo that Mr. Amirahmadi wrote to himself in November 2002, incorporating his meeting notes and describing the events of that fall as he saw them.

When the Neo-cons killed the incipient peace process, they did so partly on the basis that Iran had been uncooperative on terrorism. At a meeting in Geneva on terrorism issues, Zalmay Khalilzad had told Ambassador Zarif that the U.S. had information of a forthcoming terror bombing in the Gulf area. Mr. Khalilzad reportedly asked Iran to interrogate Al Qaeda members in Iranian prisons for information about the incident. Iran apparently dropped the ball (it says it didn’t have enough information) and did not generate any useful intelligence, and the incident turned out to be a suicide truck bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 12, 2003.

As I wrote in my column, I’m not sure that the diplomacy would have led to a “grand bargain” — there would have been very tough negotiating ahead. But the Iranian proposal was promising and certainly should have been followed up. It seems diplomatic mismanagement of the highest order for the Bush administration to have rejected that process out of hand, and now to be instead beating the drums of war and considering air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

The moderate camp in Iran was discouraged and discredited when the U.S. rejected its “grand bargain” proposal. But there is still a chance that Iran’s May 2003 proposal could be revived as a basis for new talks that aim for normalizing U.S.-Iranian relations. And if there isn’t room for a “grand bargain,” there may at least be an opportunity for a mini-bargain. Condi Rice seems more willing to negotiate with Iran than other principals in the administration, so let’s hope she pursues this path.

Thank you so much for explaining the possibility of a detente between America and Iran and the missed opportunity. I had noticed such a report before, likely from Juan Cole, but not thought much about it till tonight.

As with every aspect of our policy toward Iraq and in association, I can only express the deepest regret at the terrible physical and psychological and moral and material losses that have been sustained in the wake of the war in and occupation of Iraq. Had there been a detente with Iran, there would have been yet another reason not to go to war.

What the US is waiting for (and will not soon get) is an apology for the hostage taking. Diplomats are on sovereign soil in their embassy and attacking them is the worst sort of diplomatic error. This is especially true in a part of the world where protecting a guest is a matter of the deepest honor.

Lot offered his daughters to the poeple of Sodom to protect his visitors. This is a very ancient taboo that was broken.

In the throws of the Iranian revolution, we were the great satan and could not be seen as even human so the breaking of the taboo does not seem so strange. And, the same poeple are in power now, so we should not expect an apology even though that is what we most want.

The overture from Iran suggests that there is a possibility that a tacit recognition that hostage taking will not be a part of future relations could be possible. This is probably the best we can hope for.

An establishment of relations would allow much greater person-to-person contact and would likely have the effect of reducing the anti-infidel feeling in Iran and perhaps lead to the apology we desire in due course.

Bush had the audacity to tell us he didn’t have the leverage to deal with Iran earlier this year, knowing they wanted to agree to all of these things? Clearly, the White House had another agenda regarding Iran. Peaceful relations wasn’t the hot thing on their plate at the time. I suspect whatever was discussed in those secret energy meetings Cheney held had more to do with what they really wanted.

I am a candidate for President of United States. I seek the nomination of both political parties, so we, the people present a united fresh face to the world. I bring to the most “pow wow er full” office in the world a Vehicle for World Peace. Between today, and our election for president I will do all in my power to see you get an opportunity for your own test drive.

I will formally seek a press conference to announce my candidacy for the nomination of both parties. At the press conference, with al jazeera in attendance, I will talk to the Iranian people in a mixture of English and Farsi. I will ask the Iranian people to invite me to their country so I can get a prayer rug in Teheran which I need the prayer rug ( approximately 4.6 x 6.6 ) for the Oval Office.

From what I say to the Iranian people about the Shah, and Savak, the Shah’s secret police, and the Ayatollah, in their language, there will be a million Iranians waiting to greet me at the airport in Teheran, with flowers.

I will follow that with a song, half in Hebrew / half in Arabic. Upon that, when I feel the whole Arabic world is hanging on their TV sets I will give a solution to one of their ‘prob limbs.’ So, in on fell sweep, we will undo the evil George Bush inadvertently brought to the “whirld” stage.

“Hard-liners” is a euphemism for war criminals: people who start wars of aggression for any purpose, usually monetary, territorial, or assets. To merely call them “hard-liners” is to dress a snake in a tuxedo, call a deadly disease an inconvenience, write-off murdered civilians as “collateral damage”. To suggest that an apology, democracy, justice, etc. matter to the “evil” people that run our countries is fairy tale madness.

The Bush Administration wants war with Iran. Any inconvenient distractions from that goal must be dismissed by the administration out of hand. The same was true of Afghanistan (which offered to turn over Bin Laden before the U.S. invaded) and Iraq (which had fully complied with inspections in a futile effort to avoid invasion). Kristof seems shocked and saddened by these “revelations” (which have been know for well over a year by those of us who read blogs and the foreign press). There is nothing shocking about any of this at all; if the nature of our current administration was fully grasped by our press, our current leaders wouldn’t be in power. The saddest thing about Kristof’s column is that a smart guy like him still doesn’t get the depravity of the Bush administration, nor does he get where real news comes from (i.e. blogs and the foreign press), nor does he call to account our mainstream press’ failure to pursue stories like this.

I guess I suspected this all along, but it’s amazing to see how ill prepared we were for the Iraq war (and peace with Iran would have helped). First, we sent too few troops; second,we used the wrong set of tactics (did not plan for counterinsurgency) and now we find out we avoided attempts to make peace with the largest nation in the region: Iran. God, what fools led us down the garden path in this one.

Since Chris Dudley most wants is an apology from Iran for the breaking the ancient taboo,(and he is right) I wonder if Chris can also assure the Iranians you will not use your CIA to topple their duly elected Government as you did in 1950(c)? Or is overthrowing Iranian government ok as long as it is done by Americans, especially Republicans? Apology would also help. But then you see things through one way mirror! So Iranians also do not expect an apology forth coming anytime soon.

Thanks for collecting these documents for NYT readers. Was it worth refusing the most tenious chance to get to a reasonable understanding with Iran? Obviously for the neocons no negotiations, even less concessions, were then or are now on the agenda. An important part of the US army is now nailed down in Iraq, with no end in sight for the bloodbath among civilian and soldiers.
May I recommend to your readers to have a close look at Emmanuel Todd’s essay “After the empire” ? It has been written before the invasion of Iraq, but the projections made in that book look like becoming a terrible reality. We can only express hope that by 2008 the present administration wont be able to inflict too big additional damage to the US standing in the world.
Werner

It is only the recent acknowledgement by good people, who were previously duped by the neocons, who then helped unseat the rubberstamp congress, that has so far saved us from war with Iran. As all the lies, coverups and cowardly acts of greed and aggression are revealed, thank God, the power of the press, and those who are brave enough to break ranks and speak out, that another needless “war-of-choice” may well be averted. Not for sure, mind you, as the possibility of the neos losing the White House looms closer, they will desperately ratchet up their hate speech and incendiary rhetoric, and try again to twist religious faith and patriotism into religious intolerance and belligerent nationalism, both here and abroad. Rational people must do everything they can to expose and defuse. Our very future depends on it.

It is said that a People get the government it deserves. President Bush was reelected in 2004 even though everybody knew or should have known that the neocons are nothing but a bunch of warmongers. What were the voters thinking? I would like to give Bush and Co the benefit of the doubt and call them misguided idealists. But that gets ever more difficult to believe. A Democracy works only if there is a well informed and literate electorate. Methinks the electorate was professionally manipulated.
Bush’s failures are not only in Iraq and now in Iran. Name me one think he has done right. As an American currently living in Germany I look on aghast how our current government is throwing away two hundred years of progress. My German friends, most of them admirers of the USA, are mortified. America’s missteps are affecting the entire world but anybody who dares to speak up is immediately classified as being anti-American. These are facsist methods to classify anybody who questions government policies and actions to be unpatriotic. And since when is talking to your adversaries the same as appeasement? Enough to make a man sick. Thank God for a critical Media to bring out the truth. The Media is a cheering section for the government only in a dictatorship. Fortunately, we have not yet arrived at that point.

“Diplomatic mismanagement of the highest order” is a gross understatement. “Systematic and criminal pursuit of war” would be more accurate. Cutting off the negotiations with Iran after initially encouraging them is even worse than not having started to talk to Iran in the first place. This revelation of aborted diplomacy with Iran is just one more piece of evidence that the Bush administration, Condi Rice included, has systematically worked to expand international conflict, not reduce it. Coming on top of so much more clear evidence of the Bush administration’s intentions, such as the constant drumbeat toward war with Iran, the full support of the Israeli destruction of Lebanon, the undermining of any political progress in Palestine, the intentionally inept pacification of Afghanistan, and the building of facilities for a permanent illegal occupation of Iraq, is there any doubt of the administraton’s intent to foment war? The only question that remains is why our administration so badly wants more conflict and war.
To help us find out the true intentions of the Bush administration, responsible world leaders should actively begin the process of prosecuting the administration for war crimes. The world cannot just stand by and watch the administration continue to create more wars.

The only Presidential candidate who will work in a diplomatic way with Iran, i.e. taking some unthinkably thinkable options off the table is Dennis Kucinich. He has thrown down the gauntlet to Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, whom I otherwise support on social and economic issues.
If we are not in a war with Iran by the next Presidental election, it will be a critical if possibly overlooked issue by 2008.
Thank you so much for your enlightening article, which confirms my suspicions, as well of that of many Americans, no longer only on the left, that the Bush agenda is an Orwellian “war without end” against a shifting enemy.
Now is the time to educate the American public on how to stop this next war. Has anyone noticed it’s a lot easier to start a war than to stop one, once it’s started?

Although Mr. Kristol’s columns of late have been insightful, factual, and prescient, Mr. Kristol, as well as many of his cohorts, seems incapable of exposing in bold print the real motives and goals of the neocons which incidentally have nothing to do with justice, liberty and democracy!

Thank you Mr. Kristoff for finally publishing the documents confirming the rumors which have been circulating for more than two years. It’s well past time.

Not since I learned of the secret bombing of Cambodia by the criminal Richard Nixon have I felt such outrage. We have been told repeatedly by the traitors who lead the Executive Branch of our Government that “all options” are on the table as concerns Iran.

Obviously, this was another treasonous lie. The option of talks to settle our differences was NOT on the table – was REJECTED – and the American people were not informed.

I have not supported movements to impeach Bush up to now, but if this duplicity with regard to the American people is Constitutional, we now live in a country which might as well have Goebbels as its propaganda minister.

It was an interesting final sentance to your Sunday Times op-ed. “plowshares into swords.” What are you impying? You know if you take the three dates of George Bush’s ascencion to power….his,
1) Birthday
2) Innauguration as Governor
3) Innauguration as President
Add the digits of each individual date, add again if needs be to get a single digit. Low and behold you get 666. And Reverend Jerry Foulwell is calling Hillary “Lucifer?”

Dear Mr. Kristoff,
In this short piece I am trying to express the thoughts of a large number of well educated Europeans who have a reasonable amount of knowledge of the most active countries of the Middle East and some understanding of Muslim thought. It is thought here by most of us that active Muslims are at present trying to establish a new Khalifate that is to contain Europe and perhaps also (parts of?) North America. We are uncertain whether this idea is being held by Sunnites and Shiites separately, together or by one of the two only.
It seems to most of us that it is very necessary to make certain before the West enters into your Grand Negociations to make sure whether our above assumption is nonsense or whether it is based on some degree of truth. Your Grand Negociations may be entered into only if the assumption about the Khalifate is untrue to a minimal degree. If this minimal degree of untruth to a minimal degree exists, then negociations can be carried out by the West only as long as it is carrying a very large stick. Negotiations should take place only if the Muslims do not intend to establish a Khalifate in a large majoraty. Negociations should only be taken part of by the West without its carrying e large stick if it becomes certain that only a negligable number of Muslims want a Khalifate now or in the far future.
Yours truly
prof. M.Tels, eng.

None of this is a surprise. Is this what it will take to show the American people – the ones especially who blindly believe Mr. Bush et al – that all he is interested in is war, war, war. Anyone who does not agree with him pays. If one goes back and examines his psyche, it was there for all to see all along. That is why I did not want him to become President, and Mr. Cheney – I do not know this Mr. Cheney. Condi Rise on today’s Meet the Press repeating incredible lies about al Qaeda being the insurgents in Iraq…fantasy and lies without end.

Still almost 2 years of this administration to get through. After reading in the UK newspapers about their government’s appeal to the the White House to back down on the eager saber-rattling while they worked to secure the release of their people last month, it was grimly clear to me that we will be at war with Iran on one pretext or another before that time is out. Stories like this only make clearer how utterly determined Bush, Cheney, and Co. are to make it happen. I hope enough people are paying attention that we have some chance to stop it.

Unfortunately,The New York Times may have contributed to the ignorance of the American people to the aims of Iran. I remember the long letter that the President of Iran sent some time back to President Bush. It got mentioned in the newspaper, and there was a link contained in the article to Le Monde where the document could be read in full. I went there and that document was worth serious analysis. But as far as I know, no American newspaper ran it in full or felt it was worth a fuller discussion than the back of the hand treatment it got from the White House. Having said that let me commend you for the additional pertinent documentation your column has brought to this problematic area.

What's Next

About Nicholas Kristof

This blog expands on Nicholas Kristof’s twice-weekly columns, sharing thoughts that shape the writing but don’t always make it into the 800-word text. It’s also the place where readers make their voices heard.